Trump Likely to Profit from 2nd Amendment Quote

We try to avoid topics that are already overly covered. That’s why we haven’t brought you “news” of Donald Trump’s comments on the 2nd Amendment this week. You can hear all about it elsewhere—and you’re probably already sick of hearing about it, right? Or as Bernie Sanders might say, “people are sick and tired of hearing about your damned 2nd Amendment comments!”

However, let’s see it from a different angle. As the headline says, what is really odd is that what would be a disaster for others will probably help Trump, because of the way the media focus on him.

“Hillary wants to abolish — essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know,” Trump said.

He added: “But I tell you what, that will be a horrible day, if Hillary gets to put her judges in, right now we’re tied.”

NOTE: Most media outlets, including conservative media, are ending the quote after, “horrible day.” If you stop there, it sounds as if Trump is predicting a gun massacre. But with the end of the sentence, it seems that he’s saying it will just be a “horrible day” if Hillary gets a chance to name Supreme Court justices.

ON THE OTHER HAND: If you watch the video of his statement, you’ll see that he says the “Second Amendment people” part in the same way he said the “blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of–wherever” quote, referring to Megyn Kelly.

Flashback to the Megyn Kelly quote:

So if you think his “bloody” comment about Kelly was inappropriate, it’s likely you’ll see his 2nd Amendment comment as “bloody,” as well.

Former National Security Agency and Central Intelligence Agency Director Michael Hayden says some things are not a joking matter. Hayden sort of likens Trump’s gun talk to someone joking about bombs in an airport.

“If someone else had said that outside the hall, he’d be in the back of a police wagon now with the Secret Service questioning him,” Michael Hayden told CNN.

Indeed, the Secret Service investigated a Trump staffer after he threatened President Barack Obama on social media. The agency said on Twitter Tuesday that it was “aware” of the GOP presidential nominee’s remarks.

Fox News’ The Five went back and forth today over what exactly Donald Trump was talking about when he said “Second Amendment people” can stop Hillary Clinton‘s Supreme Court picks.

Geraldo Rivera was mortified by what Trump said, declaring, “This is a federal crime if he means what he says.”

“Imagine,” Dana Perino said, “if [Clinton] had said, or somebody had said, that about Donald Trump––like carelessly say ‘Oh, maybe someone will assassinate him’––we would all be going crazy.”

Greg Gutfeld got a little snarky after he said this kind of thing puts pressure on Trump’s strongest defenders.

For all the talk, will it really matter? There’s an old saying, “there’s no such thing as bad publicity.” Trump has steadily won over more than a year by just capturing the headlines. Of all the candidates, he has only paid about $5 per vote, compared to the $1,000 per vote that Lindsay Graham paid.

This week, there’s more free media, and Trump says the 2nd Amendment arguments “have been very good for me.”

“I have to say, in terms of politics, there is few things, and I happen to think that if [the media] did even bring this up, I think it’s a good thing for me,” Trump told Sean Hannity. . .

Trump’s campaign quickly went into damage-control mode, with his surrogates and aides floating various explanations for the remark.

Trump told Hannity “there can be no other interpretation” to what he said other than as a commentary on Clinton’s position on the Second Amendment. “Even reporters have told me,” Trump said. “I mean, give me a break.”

The great thing about being outrageous is that you can say just about any crazy thing you want, and people will say, “oh, that’s just Trump being Trump,” and it will be forgotten in a few days. My guess is that if you ask people about the “2nd Amendment kerfuffle” next week, people will just look at you blankly, and then excitedly ask, “did you hear what Trump said today??”

If Trump is the topic of attention, the “story” is either that people agree or disagree, but he’s still setting the media agenda. That’s why Trump keeps winning, and you probably don’t ever think much about what’s-her-name, who’s running against him.

Goethe Behr is a Contributing Editor and Moderator at Election Central. He started out posting during the 2008 election, became more active during 2012, and very active in 2016. He has been a political junkie since the 1950s and enjoys adding a historical perspective.

20 COMMENTS

As Rhett told Scarlett “frankly my dear, I don’t give a dam*” That is exactly how I feel about the press and its “coverage” of Trump. The more they bemoan and castigate him, the more I am inclined to vote for him! The so-called GOP establishment can go “S.T.H.” along with their “democrat” buddies.

Are you for real? People aren’t thinking much about “what’s her name”? And you call this journalism? I hope not. Because it’s not. It’s called an electoral map, buddy. People don’t win the Oval Office based on how much media whore attention they get.They get it from electoral college votes. And what’s his name doesn’t have them. And he won’t. Especially after this week. All experts that have done the math say Hillary Clinton only needs to win one or two of the toss up states to win it, while grumpy smurf needs to win 8 or 9, and has less than 20% chance of even winning one. A snowball in Florida has a better chance than he does sweetie! Veiled assassination threats are nothing to congratulate or profit from. Next time do your homework, k? Signed, a journalist who has.

Not touchy. Don’t insult your readers, but I expect nothing less from clickbait typers. Which is all this is. “We won’t tell you what he said because it’s everywhere. But here’s what he said.” Truly a joke. And as I said, shamefully interpreted.

Where, exactly, did we say, “we won’t tell you what he said because it’s everywhere. But here’s what he said.”

Quotation marks are used to convey to the reader the exact words that were said or written, Mrs. Noteboom told us in fourth grade.

As to the matter, we usually don’t write about stories that are overdone elsewhere, unless we think there’s an error, or a new angle.

In this case, (a) the quote is truncated by most media outlets, suggesting the wrong meaning, (b) whether it was a throw-away line or joke, this was probably more serious than the Kelly quote, (c) he’s saying IF she’s president, and if you’re talking about the president, jokes are taken seriously, (d) Fox personalities were some of his harshest critics (which is unusual), (e) Trump says this will help him, and (f) he’s probably right, since the media hang on his every word, as opposed to what’s-her-name’s. (The “what’s-her-name” was meant to convey that the media don’t much care what she says.)

The story was not about what Trump said, per se, it was about the media and official reaction to it, as well as his own.

touchy touchy lol I suggest you re-read your opening paragraph which is exactly where you said that, which you immediately followed with, “let’s review what Trump said.” You seriously trying to convince me a story, with the first word “trump” in the headline, isn’t about Trump? Oh honey, I was born at night, but it wasn’t last night. Thanks for coming out.

She is paraphrasing the first several paragraphs, so maybe we can just all agree to drop the quote marks. Above you say it is not about what Trump says, but you expressly focused on what Trump said in your article. Not that there was anything wrong with that. Just pointing out that you might want to drop the touchy touchy because you are swimming in that pool.

So you think a fat, ugly CRIMINAL who waddles around in a pants suit, married to a sexual predator is qualified to be President? For real??

Can’t someone get that old fat cow on Nutri-System? (calling Marie Osmond!) It would require a firearm capable of taking down a hippo for that fat cow to even feel it through all her blubber!

And now the old [email protected] has shown that her brain is failing (even more than usual). She nearly called Trump her husband (betcha she wishes he was Trump, bc then he might actually be LOYAL instead of having interns stick cigars in their genitals).

You call yourself straight shooter, but all you are is a blowhard coward. You don’t use your real name, and you spout many times discredited blather about Hillary Clinton which you refuse to even try to back up with facts. You glorify Trump, again without facts to back anything up. You don’t really know if you are shooting straight, because you have no idea what you are shooting at. I hope you don’t vote. I find that most no brain, all mouth crea three like you don’t.

I am sorry, I didn’t catch YOUR NAME! Are you all also a blowhard COWARD? ?

Neither Trump nor Clinton is the ideal candidate, but since I believe I can still express my feelings I am doing just that. Calling me names or trying to shout me down won’t get you very far, whatever your name is.?

As far as voting is concerned, I have voted in every election both local and federal ever since I was eligible. Now a big mouth ignoramus like you would prefer I stay home. That way my vote can be hijacked by some BRAIN DEAD liberal.?

I post under my own name the J stands for James. You will have to figure out the rest on your own. So is your first name straight? Is it Mr or Mrs Shooter?Even the picture is me, although I’ll admit it is from a few years back. To say that Trump is not ideal is some what of an understatement. I happen to think that Hillery Clinton has the experience, the knowledge and the temperment for the job. The fact that she is the first woman to win the nomination of a major party is just an added plus. In short, the ideal candidate. You continue to lies about her without foundation or fact. How about backing up some of your allegations with factual references.
As to being called an ignoramus by someone you, does not bother me in the least. You know no more about that than you do about politics.
I hope you are happy with your perpetual “lesser of two evils” world. I on the other hand will vote for, and campaign for someone I believe in.

Okay, how about the facts. Hildebeast is a pathological LIAR. She is FAT, UGLY, FLAT-CHESTED, and had CANKLES. She is a NATIONAL DISGRACE as she waddles around in horrible pants suits. (maybe Marie Osmond could put the old cow on Nutri-System!) She is also MARRIED TO A SEXUAL PREDATOR.

She is now losing her mind! Needs help standing up. Is always tripping & falling down. She almost called Trump her husband…